Change Your Mind

In  New York, racial minorities are automatically eligible for scarce COVID-19 therapeutics, regardless of age or underlying conditions. In Utah, “Latinx ethnicity” counts for more points than “congestive heart failure” in a patient’s “COVID-19 risk score”—the state’s framework for allocating monoclonal antibodies. And in Minnesota, health officials have devised their own “ethical framework” that prioritizes black 18-year-olds over white 64-year-olds—even though the latter are at much higher risk of severe disease.

Of course there’s no such thing as “Latinx ethnicity” because latinos aren’t an ethnic group. It’s actually very racist to say they are because by doing so you deny the existence of the millions of black latinos or Chinese, Jewish, Ukrainian, Korean, etc latinos.

Leaving all that aside, though, why does this problem even exist? How come the extremely poor Ukraine, a country at war and with a million problems, managed to import huge quantities of monoclonal antibodies back in summer? How come New York and Utah aren’t managing to do the same? We have a huge shortage here in Illinois, too. Why is there a gigantic supply of a vaccine that is clearly very ineffective but a shortage of a treatment that works?

This happens because none of it has to do with health. The point is to exacerbate racial resentments and withhold treatments that work to keep people scared.

Supporting universal healthcare today (as opposed to 30 years ago) means you are in favor of people being denied treatment because of the books they read and the way they vote. This is absolutely the next step in the process we are experiencing.

Wake up, notice that things have changed, and try to achieve the superhuman feat of changing your mind. If anything deserves the effort, it’s this.

16 thoughts on “Change Your Mind

  1. I always thought better of Utah. Have they been invaded by California?

    The Latinx thing puzzles me also. My college Spanish course was taught by a 100% ethnic Italian Argentinian lady. And of course, my ethnic-western-european son is Peruvian. So I guess if he needed to get those treatments I could get him in line first– but not for any reason that makes actual sense.

    Like

  2. Universal healthcare systems are the most efficient kind. If the ones running it are corrupt, then it makes the corruption more profitable. If the ones running it are ideologues, then it makes their agenda easier to implement. If the ones running it are morons, then the system produces more idiotic outcomes.

    Imo it might be a good time to talk more about the fact that a main source of problems world wide is that many systems and institutions have been taken over by bad or stupid people who are inflicting themselves on everyone else, instead of blaming the systems themselves simply for existing.

    Like

    1. This is the constant risk of centralization, public or private. The answer, generally, is for people to have as many options as possible, good, bad, or indifferent.

      Like

      1. “as many options as possible”

        Exactly. Competition/choice promotes efficiency in publicly funded systems like hospitals or schools.

        Like

      2. “as many options as possible”

        Exactly. Competition/choice promotes efficiency in the delivery of publicly funded social services like hospitals or schools.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. “The answer, generally, is for people to have as many options as possible, good, bad, or indifferent.”

        If bad consequences are being produced by centralisation, then the solution is not to have a choice between centralised systems, but rather to decentralise the nodes of the centralised system.

        An example of that, politically, would be, say, in Switzerland, where the federal government is, of course, centralised, and yet each person within each canton (region/node) votes directly so as to instruct the central federal government.

        The Swiss system hence equalises itself and serves the public, which is the opposite of what is happening in, say, the Western world where all of the systems are collapsing at the same time for the same reasons.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. “Universal healthcare systems are the most efficient kind”

      In theory and I think those places that have systems that are more or less functional should keep them (while allowing private alternatives that aren’t controlled by price-hiking insurance rackets).
      But the people running the US are too low in intelligence and ethics for it to work there at present (or maybe ever).

      Liked by 1 person

  3. “The point is to exacerbate racial resentments…”

    The wokesters are as racist as racist can be. Someone (here’s a clue – he was an evil 20th century dictator) once wrote “all that is not race in this world is trash…” – words the wokesters live by.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’ve always thought differently about ethnicity. My dictionary says the derivation of ethnic is Greek, from ethnikos ‘heathen’, from ethnos ‘nation’.. I’ve always thought of ethnicity as in tension with the concept of race. Race is biological, a question of consanguinity and shared inherited characteristics over populations. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is essentially cultural, linguistic.

    As you say, Latino identity is not essentially racial. It basically means that you are existentially marked and identified in profoundly significant manner by the cultural and linguistic legacy of the Spanish or Portuguese in the Americas. It implies personal or familial origin in the erstwhile Spanish or Portuguese American empires. It does have a non-essential racial connotation, though – the majority of Latinos are mestizos.

    (Is there an ambiguity or error in my thinking here? Are Brazilians, Portuguese speakers really considered Latinos?)

    The same logic applies to the category American, which I think encompasses profound existential – cultural – identification with the British legacy in the Americas.

    This is a bit more dicey, because many if not most Canadians and other British Commonwealth subjects in the Americas would balk at being called Americans. But it is a sad fact for English speaking Canadians that there are only very minor dialectical inflections setting them apart from the dialects of English spoken in the States below them, and that each Canadian province excepting Quebec generally has as much or more in common culturally and economically with States below them, than the provinces beside them.

    If English speaking Canadians outside the context of Canada do not explicitly identify themselves as such, they will be assumed to be Americans on the basis of their speech and other cultural markers. Which is in fact what they are: poor deluded Tories who have yet to accept and assert their God given rights, yet to throw off the Thrall of London and the Queen, to finally join the Republic.

    Which is all merely to say that I think of the terms Latino and American in the same fashion. It’s important to note that the two identities are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Latino-American. The reverse is far more rare, due to present contingencies of history and politics, but I think ideationally still possible and even in some rare cases actually instantiated.. It is of course paradoxical and interesting that the word American can, and in the geographic analysis does, semantically contain Latinos, and when I lived in Mexico I often got called a Norte Americano and because of this, but even those Latino chauvinists knew that I am an American in the cultural and political sense I’m delineating here, and that they are not.

    It’s becoming more and more difficult to make such salient distinctions these days, because we have so many sociopaths bent on systemically destroying language – which is to say thought – and too many brain neutered idiots who seem unable to think their way out of a paper bag, let alone their epistemic maze. Our intellectual culture is morphing into a great ideational tarpit, where no one can pull their minds free..

    I think we need to think and speak back forcefully at the spiritually effeminate and mentally emasculate, in hope of clearing their minds and hearts of their semantic haze.. It’s one of the few things a part from prayer that may possibly extract them from their ontologically muddle.. We should careful in attempting to save them, least we get sucked into it ourselves, to die pathetic futile mental deaths like spiritual mastodons drowning in nihilistic quicksand..

    Like

  5. “I’ve always thought of ethnicity as in tension with the concept of race. Race is biological, a question of consanguinity and shared inherited characteristics over populations. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is essentially cultural, linguistic.”

    This is not an uncommon way to try and parse race and ethnicity.

    But I don’t buy it. Both concepts are socially constructed artifices of pseudo-scientific 19th and early 20th century thought. As concepts, they’ve both proved themselves far more trouble than they’re worth as they encourage essentialist jibber-jabber that too frequently ends in extreme violence.

    “that each Canadian province excepting Quebec generally has as much or more in common culturally and economically with States below them, than the provinces beside them.”

    That may be as it may, at least economically, but no matter, Canadians have always known for certain that it is their birthright to be morally superior to the avaricious, quarrelsome, and violent republicans to their south.

    Like

    1. My thought on race, and I guess it is an unpopular one – is that we all are essentially of one race, the human one, and that what we talk of as races are just different branches of our extended family. There are general distinctions that can be discerned between the branches, but those are in the Aristotelean sense accidental, we are in our essence – you know, essentially – of the same kind.

      I think that nations and cultures are based in common culture and language, and that’s what an “ethnos” is.. That’s why it’s critically important in my mind to assert that we do in fact have an American ethnicity. This multicultural idea of many cultures inhabiting the same space is dangerous, and will lead to conflict, even war. We need to de-racialize the idea of ethnicity, assert that anyone can assimilate into our culture and ethnicity, and emphasize a broad American cultural commonality.

      All this SJW nonsense about cultural appropriation is very dangerous. This country is a massive fusion of thousands of cultural streams that has in fact created a unique stew built off the Anglo-American base. This Anglo-American core belongs to all of us, not just those of British descent. Everyone who comes here has to appropriate this, make it their own, and not assert their own prerogatives in an aggressive and bigoted way, or else we’re going to end up fracturing as a society..

      Our traditional melting pot ethos has to be vigorously defended, because the alternative is dissolution and violence. That’s why the ethic is being undermined by our sociopathic elite, they are intent on destroying our society by dividing, then subjugating us.

      Like

      1. “My thought on race, and I guess it is an unpopular one – is that we all are essentially of one race, the human one, and that what we talk of as races are just different branches of our extended family.”

        In Greek, the word genus means both race and stock, which means that your opinion was once quite popular.

        Like

      2. “we all are essentially of one race, the human one…”

        “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”

        Like

        1. GSW, I think if we’re not on the same page, we’re reading very similar passages.

          27 And rising up, [Philip] went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.

          28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet.

          29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

          30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

          31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

          32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.

          33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?

          34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man?

          35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

          36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?

          37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

          38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.

          Like

  6. Maybe not on the exact same page, but similar passages, same book..

    27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.

    28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet.

    29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

    30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

    31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

    32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.

    33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?

    34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man?

    35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

    36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?

    37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

    38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.